In most daily fantasy sports, you can take the same approach from one slate to the next.

Sure, you'll have to tweak based on slate size, scoring environment, and more, but the general thought process of "touchdowns good, fumbles bad" translates.

In NASCAR, it's a different story.

For FanDuel's daily fantasy NASCAR product, the tentpoles for upside are laps led and place-differential. Because not every race is the same length, the number of points available for laps led will vary from one week to the next. And the viability of place-differential -- the positional difference between your starting position and where you finish -- changes based on track type, as well.

Thus, if we're digging into perfect lineups to identify a blanket process, we've gotta silo this puppy. Today, we'll run through different buckets races can fall into, which tracks may fit into each bucket, and what past perfect lineups have looked like for similar races.

Finding Lap Totals

Let's start with the basics. The number of laps dictates how many FanDuel points are available for laps led. With each lap led being worth 0.1 points, a 160-lap race has 16.0 FanDuel points for laps led; that goes up to 50.0 in a 500-lap race. You can see why this would be important.

You can find this info for each race on the schedule page on NASCAR's website. It's worth noting that the name of the race (like the Daytona 500) typically references the miles run, not the number of laps, so I would check this each week to make sure you're on the right path.

Why This Matters

The more laps in a race, the more points that are available for laps led. It's pretty simple, really.

At a lot of tracks, drivers who qualify toward the front will be more likely to lead laps than those starting further back. They won't have the same place-differential upside of those in the back, but they can make up for it by racking up laps led while those drivers work their way forward.

As a result, in longer races, perfect lineups will likely feature more drivers starting toward the front of the pack than in shorter races. We'll see how prevalent they are later on.

Accounting for Predictability

How front-centric a lineup is doesn't solely depend on the lap count, though. It also depends on how predictive the starting order is of the finishing order.

At a short, flat track, starting position tends to be a great predictor of how a driver will finish. There isn't much chaos on those tracks, and the best cars tend to flash their speed in qualifying. As a result, in the first 10 races of NASCAR's Next-Gen era (from 2022 on), pole-sitters on short, flat tracks have averaged 123.8 laps led per race despite having just one winner in the bunch.

The flip side would be a pack track. There, passing is relatively easy, and there's loads of chaos. Thus, the starting order is a poor predictor of how drivers will finish. In 10 pack races during the Next-Gen era, the pole-sitter has won twice -- more than on the short, flat tracks -- but they've averaged just 31.4 laps led per race.

The Key Characteristics

As a result of this, we have two major factors that will dictate how we want to build lineups: race length and predictability.

These two won't always go hand in hand. Some short races are fairly predictable while some of the longer ones can be chaotic. That's why it's important to identify the characteristics of each track before filling out your lineups.

Once we figure out which boxes each race checks, we can have a general idea of what an optimal lineup should look like. Here's that (extremely basic) mindset for each of the key buckets, with "front-centric" meaning a lineup that features more drivers starting toward the front of the pack:

Long, Predictable: Front-centric

Long, Unpredictable: Blend

Short, Predictable: Blend

Short, Unpredictable: Back-centric

That's the super, super dumbed-down version. But let's go now into some specific track types, outline which tracks fit into those buckets, and look at what perfect lineups have looked like at that kind of track.

Short, Flat Tracks

Examples: Phoenix, Richmond, Martinsville, New Hampshire

As you probably guessed based on the discussion of pole-sitters above, short, flat tracks all belong in the "long, predictable" bucket, and it leads to the most front-centric approach you'll see.

As mentioned, we've had 10 races at short, flat tracks since NASCAR started using their Next-Gen cars in 2022. With five drivers in each optimal lineup, that gives us 50 data points of drivers who have made a perfect lineup in this span.

Of those 50 drivers, 6 were pole-sitters, and 15 started inside the top 5. Every race but one had a driver who started in the top five make the perfect lineup and four of them had multiple. The perfect lineup for the 2022 race at New Hampshire featured zero drivers starting lower than 10th.

Place-differential points matter. You get a half-point for each spot a driver finishes ahead of where they started. But when so many finishing points and laps-led points are gobbled up by drivers at the front, it's harder for place-differential drivers to break through.

The other takeaway is that a lot of higher-salaried drivers wound up in these perfect lineups. High-salaried drivers are typically the stronger cars, and those are the ones more likely to lead laps.

Five of the 10 perfect lineups featured three drivers with salaries of $10,000 or higher on FanDuel. With $10,000 being the average salary if you use the full $50,000 allotment, it means it was optimal to jam in more studs rather than aiming for balance.

All of this is not to say that you should completely ignore place-differential. You need to save salary at some point, and value plays aren't likely to get many points from laps led.

The high-teens to low-20s was a popular range for getting place-differential without completely forgoing finishing points. Four drivers made the perfect lineup after starting 15th, and 14 drivers made it while starting from 15th to 21st. These are drivers who didn't tear it up in qualifying but still had enough speed to snag a good finish and pay off their salaries.

The one exception worth discussing here is Richmond. Richmond is a short, flat track, but it also features a ton of tire falloff. Thus, a driver's single-lap speed in qualifying won't be as indicative of their race pace as what you'd see at Phoenix or Martinsville. The 2022 fall Richmond race featured no drivers who started better than 13th inside the perfect lineup.

You still should generally prefer drivers up front there because they have easier access to laps led. But if a strong driver qualifies further back at Richmond, it's far less of a red flag than it may be for these other tracks.

Short, Banked Tracks

Examples: Bristol, Dover

Bristol and Dover are odd ducks in the Cup Series. They're both shorter tracks with super long races, but they're a bit more chaotic than the short, flat tracks. It leads to a two-pronged approach.

You do still want lap-leaders here. In three races on the paved versions of these tracks in the Next-Gen era, the average perfect lineup has included 312.3 laps led across the five drivers combined. If you don't get lap-leaders in your lineup, you're likely drawing dead.

But place-differential also flashes thanks to the increased chaos. Those three races featured more drivers in the perfect lineup who started outside the top 15 (6) than inside the top 10 (5).

In other words, you want to prioritize drivers who can get you access to either laps led or place-differential upside. You'll need lots of points in these races, and those are the easiest routes to getting them. Heck, you may even get both at once as Chris Buescher led 169 laps at Bristol in 2022 after starting 20th.

Of the drivers who made the perfect lineup after starting in the top 10, the lowest lap-led total was 73. So if they're starting up front and can lead laps, they're worthy of a look, and you'll likely want one or two of those drivers per lineup. Otherwise, place-differential to exploit the potential for chaos is fully on the table.

Intermediates

Examples: Darlington, Gateway, Nashville

Although these tracks are lumped together, that's really due just to their length. We should talk Darlington by itself first and then get into the others.

The reason we need to separate Darlington is that it -- like Richmond -- is a high-tire-wear track. Thus, single-lap speed isn't a good indicator of how fast a driver will be in the race.

As a result, each of the three perfect lineups from Darlington in the Next-Gen era has featured exactly one driver who started inside the top five. The second-highest starting driver began the race in 10th each time (a coincidence -- there's nothing magical about the 10th starting spot).

This makes Darlington more similar to Bristol and Dover. With the fall race being 367 laps and the spring at 293, laps led are important; we just don't need to sell our souls for drivers at the front when searching for lap-leaders.

Darlington also features more incidents, making place-differential more relevant. Nearly half of the drivers in these perfect lineups (7 of 15) started 20th or lower. Thus, we should get a lap-leader in our lineups, but if we like the speed of a driver starting further back, we have the green light to use them, as well.

Gateway and Nashville are less chaotic, leading to more front-centric lineups. Across four perfect lineups, eight drivers have started in the first eight spots, including three of the four pole-sitters. The average perfect lineup featured 185 laps led, meaning these two tracks are more similar to Phoenix than they are Darlington.

Place-differential is viable if fast cars qualify poorly. Kyle Larson started 22nd in Gateway in 2023 and made the perfect lineup. He was just paired with two other drivers who started up front and led laps while Larson picked his way through the field.

Roster construction for these two was also similar to the short, flat tracks. Three of the four perfect lineups had three drivers with salaries of $10,000 or higher. Thus, for all intents and purposes, you can treat Nashville and Gateway as if they are short, flat tracks despite their slightly shorter race lengths.

1.5-Mile Tracks

Examples: Las Vegas, Kansas, Charlotte (oval), Texas, Homestead

During the Next-Gen era, the best action in the Cup Series has come on 1.5-mile tracks. That action derives from the drivers' ability to pass, which impacts the way we fill out lineups.

Of the 10 races at 1.5-mile tracks in this span, the shortest scheduled distance has been 267 laps. That's 26.7 FanDuel points for laps led, which is a decent amount. So, laps led do matter, and we've seen an average of 178.9 laps led per perfect lineup.

They just don't necessarily come from drivers starting up front.

In these 10 races, 16 drivers have led 50-plus laps. Sure, a lot of them did start up front. But five drivers started outside the top 10, including one driver from 22nd and another from 36th. Fast cars can make passes, so starting further back isn't a killer for your laps-led upside.

The result is perfect lineups that are pretty spread out.

Given the number of drivers who qualify in the back and lack the speed to compete, that's an impressive distribution. And it leads to a freeing approach to DFS.

Effectively, you get to prioritize speed -- regardless of where it's starting -- above strategy. The "speed" angle will often lead to drivers up front, but if you love a driver starting 27th, you can justify them even if their salary is lofty.

It's definitely good to have someone up front who can lead laps early, and you won't want to go too crazy on drivers who qualified well as that oversells the predictiveness of qualifying. But in general, you get to target the drivers you think will be fastest no matter where they're starting, and it leads to fun races both on the track and in DFS land.

Big, Fast Tracks

Examples: Pocono, Michigan

This subset technically includes Fontana, as well, but by the time you're reading this, that track will likely be rubble. Pour one out.

Michigan and Pocono present us with our first big dilemma. Because the tracks are so big (2.0 and 2.5 miles, respectively), races are shorter (200 and 160 laps, respectively, in 2023). That should funnel us toward prioritizing place-differential with less laps-led upside at the front.

But with the top-end speeds these tracks produce, the fastest cars are far more likely to qualify up front. Thus, if you qualify poorly, the odds you just can't hang are higher.

So, what wins out -- the short length or the high predictiveness?

The answer, not surprisingly, is not cut and dry. We've got just a two-race sample on these tracks in the Next-Gen era, but both featured a driver who started in the top three in the perfect lineup and another who started inside the top 11. So drivers who started up front were able to make it despite the reduced number of laps.

They just weren't getting there via laps led. These two perfect lineups averaged just 61.5 laps led across the five drivers, and no driver led more than 38 laps. In other words, when drivers made it after starting up front, they were getting there based largely on finishing points.

That's why this track type is one heavily dependent on if statements. You can gun for place-differential if you think that driver has the speed necessary to climb their way forward. You can use a driver up front if you think they have a shot at the win. If a driver doesn't pass the relevant sniff test, they're probably not a good fit.

Of the track types, this is the one that's least dependent on strategy. You're primarily trying to maximize finishing points, which can get a bit hairy. But with chaos being a little lower at these spots, it definitely doesn't bar us from filling out quality lineups, regardless.

Road Courses

Examples: COTA, Sonoma, Chicago (Street), Watkins Glen, Indianapolis (road), Charlotte (road)

Road courses are similar to the big, fast tracks; they're just a bit less frustrating because a poor qualifying run is less damning.

In the Next-Gen era, passing on road courses has been difficult. It led to a new rules package in 2023 hoping to make the racing better.

Despite that, place-differential points have still been available. Six of the nine perfect lineups on road courses have featured multiple drivers starting 20th or lower.

As a result, if there's a driver you like starting lower in the order, you can and should lock them in. That's the optimal route to upside in a shorter race, and even with passing being difficult, it hasn't been impossible.

With that said, the front has still been fruitful. Those nine perfect lineups have had an average of 1.9 drivers who started inside the top nine positions. All but one of them featured a driver who started inside the top five. The winner of the race is likely to start up front, and the 43 points for a win on FanDuel are likely enough to get them into the perfect lineup. The same thought applies to other drivers who crack the top five.

The mindset I'd want here is this: accept place-differential when it's presented to you. If a fast driver slips in qualifying and starts in the back, use them. They're going to be the best process plays in the field. If you get multiple drivers who check that box, use 'em both.

Once you've done that, then you can switch to maximizing finishing points. The drivers who qualified well are likely good road racers, and that increases the odds they finish well. Obviously, you'd love to pair that with some place-differential, but if we don't have those options available to us, it's better not to force it.

Pack Tracks

Examples: Daytona, Talladega, Atlanta

The most extreme starting-position-based strategy comes on superspeedways.

We're stackin' the back, baby.

These are the only races that fall into the "short, unpredictable" bucket. There aren't many laps to be led, and high crash rates mean the starting grid has little bearing on the finish. It's the perfect storm for us to prioritize drivers with poor starting positions.

There have been 10 pack-style races in the Next-Gen era. In that time, more drivers starting 30th on back have cracked a perfect lineup than those starting in the top nine.

This is why our baseline approach is to focus on drivers starting further back. It makes sense anecdotally based on the way the races play out, and the data backs it up. There are some caveats, though.

First, this is most exaggerated in the Daytona 500. Not only is Daytona narrower than Talladega and a shorter race than Atlanta, but the starting grid is set by a pair of races on Thursday rather than qualifying. Thus, a driver with a great car could struggle Thursday night and start further back, something that wouldn't impact their ability to race well on Sunday in any way. The two Daytona 500s in this span had 5 of 10 drivers in perfect lineups starting outside the top 30.

Second, because Atlanta is a shorter track (thus featuring races with more laps), drivers starting up front are more viable. Pole-sitters in two of four Atlanta races have made perfect lineups, and a driver starting second made one, as well. You shouldn't actively seek out these drivers, but they're less of a cross-off than they would be at Daytona.

Third, Talladega has the lowest incident rate of the three tracks. This allows more drivers in the teens to pop into perfect lineups because they're starting deep enough to get place-differential but also fast enough to contend for the win.

So, there are differences overall. But in general, our mindset should be to prioritize place-differential above all else.

There will be times where this means you're not using anywhere near the whole salary cap. The average salary for drivers in perfect lineups at these tracks is $7,538, meaning the average perfect lineup had more than $12,000 left on the table. Perfect lineups are hindsight analysis where you can cherry-pick the best performances of the value plays, so things might not always be this extreme, but you do need to be comfortable not using up all of the salary available to you.

The above author is a FanDuel employee and is not eligible to compete in public daily fantasy contests or place sports betting wagers on FanDuel. The advice provided by the author does not necessarily represent the views of FanDuel. Taking the author's advice will not guarantee a successful outcome. You should use your own judgment when participating in daily fantasy contests or placing sports wagers.